LPA/5/2026 of Sri K. Rama Krishna Rao, IAS Vs Smt B Annapurna on 27 April 2026

1. Smt B Annapurna, Wo Pantulaiah, aged about 51 years Part Time Sweeper, O/o. Executive Engineer I B Division. Suryapeta lrrigation. Circle now working in the O/o Executive Engineer lrrigation Division, Kodad, Suryapet District.

2. A Nagamma, Wo. Ramulu, aged about 54 years, Part Time Sweeper, O/o Superintending Engineer I B Division Bhonger erstwhile Nalgonda District now working in the O/o Superintending Engineer lnigation Circle Suryapet, Suryapet District. ...Respondents/Petitioners

3. Sri N.Shiva Dharmateja, Superintending Engineer, lrrigation Circle, Suryapet District, formerly Nalgonda District.

4. G.Anil Kumar, Engineering Chief Admn. lnigation and CAD Department, Errammanzil, Hyderabad.

5. Rahul Bojja, l.A.S, Principal Secretary to the State of Telangana I and CAD Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents (Respondents/Respondents No. 3 to 5 are not necessary parties to this Appeal)

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order in lA. No. 2 of 2026 daled 24.04.2026 p:rssed in C.C. No. 2761 ol 2023, including issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants against the appellant. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy Advocate General along with Sri S. Suman, Government Pleader for Serviceslll Counsel for tlre Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Sri. S. Alay Kumar representing Sri M. Keshava Rao, Advocate The Court delivered the following:

F, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICB NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA L.P.A No.5 of2026 Date227.04.2026 Between: Mr.K.Rama Krishna Rao, IAS The State of Telangana Principal Secretary. Finance and Planning t'lRM-l Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad. ... Appellant And Smt.B.Annapuma W/o. Pantulaiah. Kodad, Suryapet District and others- ,..Respondents JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P-Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.A.Sudarshan Reddy, leamed Advocate General along with Mr.S.Suman, learned Government Pleader for Services- III, appears for the appellant and Mr.S.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr.M.Keshava Rao, leamed counsel for respondent No.l and 2 and perused the record.

2. The instant is the Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) which has been filed aggrieved of the order of learned contempt Court in C.C. No.276l of 2023 dated 24.04.2026 while deciding I.A.No.2 of

3. The contempt petition filed before the leamed Single Bench is one rvhich is arising out of WP.No.3454 of 2018 decided on 30.01 .2023. In the midst of the proceedings in the contempt case, there \ryas an order for presence of appellant-contemnor before the contenrpt Court. However,.on the date, when the matter fixed on 23.04|.2026, the appellant-contemnor moved t.A.No.l of 2026 seekin;g for dispensation of his appearance. The said dispense with petition stood dismissed on23.04.2026. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 24.04.2026. On 24.04.2026 also, the appellant- conterrrnor failed to appear and filed I.A.No.2 of 2026 seeking disperuiation of his presence, as the appellant, who is presently occupying the chair of the Chief Secretary for the State of Telangrlna, was in the midst of the Cabinet Sub-Committee meeting and that rneeting was going on 23.04.2026 and 24.04.2026, which made it. not possible for the appellant-contemnor to appear before the Court and sought for dispensing of his presence. [t was at this juncturt:, the leamed Single Bench feeling offended of the repetition of non.-appearance of appellant-contemnor before the contempt Court ordered for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) seeking his presence before the Court.

4. House Motion was moved yesterday fbr taking-up the matter in the light of NBWs being issued and this Bench held sitting yesterday and listed the matter today, by suspending the execution of the order of learned Single Bench passed on24.04-2026-

5. Considering the f,act that the present L.P.A has been preferred only being aggrieved by the order insofar as issuance of NBWs, this Bench would be confrned to test the veracity of the order, dated 24.04.2026, which is under challenge in the present L.P.A. Though, the learned Advocate General emphasized before the Bench that firstly the order passed by the Bench in the writ petition has been duly complied with and secondly, the appellant-contemnor in the present case was the Finance Secretary then and he has been made contemnor in the capacity of Finance Secretary, to which post he has demitted quite some time back i.e. on 30.04.2025 itself and since there is some other incumbent occupying the post of Principal Secretary, Finance Department, and therefbre, the learned contempt Court should have exonerated the present appellant and should have pursued the matter against the present Secretary, if at, all there is any contempt and there is compliance still to be done-

6. As has been discussed earlier, since this Bench is seized of in the present appeal, onl-v insofar as the issuance of NBWs is concerned. it woulti not be justified at this juncture for this Bench to go into the contentions raised by the learned -Advocate General, which we leave it for the appellant-contemnor to raise them betbre the concerned Bench seized of the contempt case itselfl So far as the issuance of NBWs is concerned, since we have already suspended the operation of the same, at this jrurcture, we are of the considt:red opinion that the subject to the appellant-contemnor appearing before the concemed Bench on 29.04.2026 and represent before the Bench in accordance with law, the im;-rugr"red order dated 24.04.2026 shall stand set aside. We also make it clear that the appellant-contemnor would be at liberty to raise all his defenses before the concemed contempt Court, so far as his contentior/explanation to the Bench insornuch as due compliance having been made, so far as the order in the writ petition is concerrred i.e. order passed in WP.No.3454 of 2018 decided on 30.01.2023. ! I IIII

1-\

7. [n view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order, dated 24.04.2026, passed by the learned Single Bench in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in C.c.No .2761 of 2023 is hereby set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeat stands allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any' shall stand closed. Sd,- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR

,,TRUE COPY'I SECTION OFFICER To,

SriK.RamaKrishnaRao,lAS,Principalsecretary,FinanceandPlanning HRM-1 Department, State of iJr'ngun'' Secretariat' Hyderabad' (By Special Messenger) The Director General ofPolice,stateofTelanganaatHyderabad (By Special Messenger) Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT) Two ccs to the GP for services lll, High court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad (OUT) The Registrar (Judicial-l), High Court for the State of Telangana' at HyOeraUIO. (By Special Messenger) The Section officer, o.s. section' High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. The section officer, Posting section, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad One CC to Mr. M. Keshava Rao' Advocate (OPUC) Two CD CoPies

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. I DL hti.

HIGH COURT PSK, J & NNR, J DATED: 2.710412026

JUDGMENT

LPA.No.S of 2O26 ALLOWING THE L.P.A. 0,n ,\ 7ll?f, *